get_vesting_count

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what the tool does without disclosing any behavioral traits. For example, it does not indicate whether the count is global or filtered, whether it requires authentication, or if it is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonable but could be more complete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., integer) or any filtering scope. For a minimal tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered with no properties. The description implicitly adds meaning by specifying that the count is for 'vesting schedules created,' which provides context beyond the empty schema. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Total vesting schedules created' clearly states the tool returns a count of vesting schedules. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from other get_vesting_* tools that return details or lists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly suggests using this tool to get a count of vesting schedules, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as get_vesting_details or get_vesting_events. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.